Revell 1/96 HMS Beagle kit?

The kit is a reappearance of what may have been the biggest of all Revell's hoaxes.  The original Revell "Beagle" kit first appeared in 1961.  It was a modified reissue of the old Revell H.M.S. Bounty.  As such, it didn't meet any reasonable definition of the term "scale model." The two actual ships resembled each other only in that each had a hull, a deck, and three masts.

The differences between the kits were significant, but didn't have much to do with what the real Beagle looked like - and didn't conceal the fact that both used the same hull castings.  The "Beagle" kit had a different deck, which included some oddly-shaped vertical projections to form something resembling bulwarks in the waist and bow.  Some new deck fittings and a couple of small boats were added, and the mizzen yards were omitted so the "new" kit was barque-rigged.  (That's about the only change that had anything to do with reality.  The real Beagle was indeed a barque.)

I suppose we ought to be charitable and acknowledge that the people currently running Revell Germany probably weren't around when their American predecessors pulled this stunt.  The current management may genuinely not know that it's perpetuating a marketing ploy that amounts to an outright lie.

Oddly enough the stunt didn't end with Revell.  One of those Italian wood ship model companies, Mamoli, sells an "H.M.S. Beagle" kit.  It costs about $200, claims all sorts of wonderful features - and quite obviously is based on the same company's H.M.S. Bounty.  It has the same utterly spurious deck fixtures that the Revell kit has.  It's ludicrously obvious what happened:  the Mamoli designers' "research" consisted of buying a Revell "Beagle" kit and copying it.

Any conversion of this...thing...would be pretty much the same as starting with a Revell Bounty.  I suppose it could indeed be turned into a fictitious naval brig; that wouldn't actually be much more of a stretch than what Revell did to it.  But to my eye, at least, the shape of the Bounty is pretty hard to hide - and the bulbous shape of it hollers "merchant ship" pretty loudly.  (The Bounty was built as a merchantman, with the original name Bethia.)

I probably get more emotional about this particular topic than it's worth.  But disreputable stunts like this stick in my craw.

That's disappointing to hear.  The real Beagle actually did start life as a real RN Brig sloop, the barque rigged mizzen mast being a late addition shipped specifically for the famous Darwin circumnavigation voyage.   That's why I thought about using it as basis for a slightly earlier RN sloop.  It's too bad that Revell used the BOunty hull for Beagle because Bounty had that typical blunt merchant hull with very bluff bow and square mid-ship section, where as RN sloops generally had very sharp lines with a sharp bow and very steep deadrise at the midship.   The box art for the Revell Beagle actually does seem to depict a fine lined hull that could have been a brig hull.   So too bad the contend doesn't match the box art.

The box art appears to be the only feature of this "new" kit that isn't identical to the 1961 version.  The new picture doesn't look much like the real Bounty - though it doesn't look much like the real Beagle either.

A month or two ago on another Forum thread we had an interesting discussion of the Revell sailing ship range.  Olde Tymers like me tend to think of it as a dominating feature of the ship modeling world - and in many ways it used to be.  But the truth of the matter is that the original, U.S. branch of Revell only issued scale models (by a reasonable definition of the term) of fourteen sailing vessels:

U.S.S. Constitution (in three scales)

Santa Maria

H.M.S. Bounty

Cutty Sark (in three scales)

U.S.C.G.C. Eagle

U.S.S. Kearsarge

Flying Cloud

H.M.S. Victory

Golden Hind

Mayflower (in two scales)

Yacht America

Great Eastern

Charles W. Morgan

Viking ship

The first, the original Constitution, appeared in 1956, and the last, the Viking ship (a really nice scale model of the Gokstad Vessel) in 1977.  (My source for all this is Dr. Graham's fine book, Remembering Revell Model Kits.)  Revell was, in other words, in the business of making genuine sailing ship kits for less than half of its total existence.  And every sailing ship kit that's appeared under the U.S. Revell label since 1977 has been a reissue or modification of some sort.

To be absolutely complete that list ought to include a few others.  Some of Revell's first kits, back in the early fifties, were tiny sailing ships whose molds originated with a company called Gowland.    And in 1970 Revell issued a...thing...it called a "Spanish Galleon," which hardly qualifies as a scale model.  (I question whether anything that looked like that ever floated.)  Revell Germany has also issued a few of its own sailing ships, including a carrack and the schoolship Alexander von Humbolt.  And several kits that originated with other firms (including Heller and Aurora) have turned up periodically in Revell Germany boxes.  But those fourteen are the only real U.S. Revell scale sailing ship models. 

The total list of sailing ship kits that have appeared in the U.S. Revell catalog is at least twice that long, but the others have been reissues - with or without significant modifications.  The C.S.S. Alabama is a modified reissue of the Kearsarge kit.  The Thermopylae and Pedro Nunes are based on the Cutty Sark.  The Seeadler is a modified Eagle.  The United States is a modified Constitution.  The Stag Hound is a modified Flying Cloud.  Etc. I sometimes wonder how the conscientious, knowledgeable artisans who designed the original kits reacted to such merchandising ploys.

At the present time the Revell/Monogram catalog contains exactly two sailing ships:  the 1/192 and 1/96 versions of the Constitution, dating from 1956 and 1965, respectively.  (I believe a reboxing of the Alabama is coming shortly; that'll make three.)  It's a sad shadow of what the range used to be.  Revell Germany is selling a few more of the old kits; I gather they sell a little better in Europe. 

I'd like to see several of those old American sailing ships back on the market. My choices would be the Flying Cloud, Golden Hind, Mayflower, and Charles W. Morgan - all fine kits, and good bases for serious scale models.  Instead they give us that infernal "Beagle," the worst of the hoaxes.  Oh, well....

I totally agree with you as I have been modelling these ships  since I was 13 in 1957.

My first was the 16inch USS Constitution.

Some time ago I ran across information about the "Flying Cloud" Revell's model is excellent and realistic.

Even though the ""Stag Hound" is the same, the builders of these two clippers also built two others. So when I find out their names and with slight modification, I was have all four sister ships.

As for modelling companies not producing as much as they used to, permit me to play devil's advocate.

The price of plastic followins the price of oil, as that is what it is based on. Then again, kids tghese days prefer other hobbies, especially their computers.

Because your comments agree with my thoughts, I never bought Revell's Beag;e, and at this point I guess I never will.

 

 

 

Chuck,

Prof. Tilley pretty much has summed it up on the Beagle - "gross" is a descripton that keeps popping up in my head.

Perhaps only to add one thing - I have actually bought Revell's Beagle when it was re-released, as I had the vague idea to make a decent generic transport out of it.

The kit ended up being cut up for spares, because accuracy aside the kit has really serious fit issues.

Jorit

One small postscript to the Revell sailing ship list - Revell of Germany offers a Batavia, which, although  it is based on the replica and therefore not 100% correct, is a really nice kit and well worth adding to a collection of 1/150ish warships.

Jorit

[quote user="Bob Banks"

The price of plastic followins the price of oil, as that is what it is based on. Then again, kids tghese days prefer other hobbies, especially their computers.

[/quote]

Kit manufacturers have repeatedly used the price of oil as an excuse to raise kit prices.  I'm sorry, but I don't swallow it.

The actual plastic in the typical kit costs a few cents; a doubling or tripling of the price of oil can legitimately be blamed for only a slight increase in the cost of producing the kit.  The lion's share of the expense goes into research, design, mold-making (hugely expensive), the drafting of the instructions, the painting of the box art, the production of the decals, packaging, and shipping.  And, of course, everybody involved in the process has to make a profit. 

The plastic model business is vastly different now from what it was thirty or forty years ago.  Mr. Banks quite correctly points out that the younger set - which used to comprise the majority of kit purchasers - has almost completely abandoned the hobby.  The typical kit being sold by Hasegawa, Tamiya, Dragon, or Trumpete nowadays is most emphatically an adult-oriented product.  I don't claim any special insights into the business, but I remember that back in the late seventies, when I was working my way through school in a hobby shop, the distributors' reps often said that, as a rule of thumb, a new plastic kit was expected to sell 100,000 units before the company broke even on it.  I don't know what the corresponding figure is in 2010, but I suspect a kit that sells 100,000 units today - even over a period of several years - is regarded as a tremendous success.

There's another side to the coin.  We should remember that, generally speaking (with plenty of exceptions), the rise in price and decline in the number of purchasers has been accompanied by a big rise in quality.  Olde Phogies like Mr. Banks and me get lots of pleasure out of reminiscing about the kits of yore, but the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of them are pretty crude by comparison with the typical airplane or tank on the hobby shop shelf today.

Sailing ships have always been a big exception to the rule.  Companies like Revell seem to have aimed them, from the very beginning, at adults rather than kids, and to have put an unusual amount of care and pride into them.  The best of Revell's sailing ships, in my opinion, can stand comparison with the majority of today's products.  The recently-reissued Revell Charles W. Morgan, for instance, exhibits a level of detail that - especially in view of its size - is downright mind-blowing.  You won't find much better detail on the most recent Japanese and Chinese kits.

The old Revell Flying Cloud wasn't on quite that exalted level, but it came pretty close - a really nice kit that I, for one, would be glad to see again.

Donald McKay's yard built at least nine clipper ships - depending on how one counts (and how one defines "clipper ship").  The Wikipedia article on McKay contains a list:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_McKay#McKay.27s_clippers .  This list of McKay-built ships includes quite a few more:  http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/D_McKay_Yard.html .

Donald McKay was one of the most progressive naval architects in history, and virtually all of his ships were significantly different from each other.  We have reasonably complete sets of plans for the Stag Hound and the Flying Cloud; they were conspicuously different in both hull form and deck layout.  (The Revell Stag Hound kit is just one more of the company's marketing stunts - like the so-called Beagle.)  Two sources that would be good places to start for anybody interested in the subject are Howard I. Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail and William Crothers' The American-Built Clipper Ship.

I'm not optimistic that the plastic sailing ship will be reborn anytime soon.  But if a modern manufacturer would undertake a nice, reasonably large-scale American clipper, I'd certainly be among the first in line to buy it.  If I could afford it.

jtilley

 We have reasonably complete sets of plans for the Staghound and the Flying Cloud; they were conspicuously different in both hull form and deck layout.  (The Revell Staghound kit is just one more of the company's marketing stunts - like the so-called Beagle.)  Two sources that would be good places to start for anybody interested in the subject are Howard I. Chapelle's The Search for Speed Under Sail and William Crothers' The American-Built Clipper Ship.

I'll second the opinion on the Stag Hound kit.   About 10 years ago,  I owned both the Flying Cloud and the Stag Hound.   The hulls were exactly the same, as were a number of other parts.  Crother's book is a real resource-- the kit matches the layout of the Flying Cloud in the book pretty closely. 

The Stag Hound kit,  however, does not.   Revell put an extra deckhouse forward instead of a raised foc'sle.  It seems obvious that Revell invented some arbitrary changes to the deck layout., and then picked another Clipper Ship's name to go on the box.

I built the Flying Cloud, and sold the Stag Hound.  

To answer the original question – yes I did, this year.

The kit is horrible. The word travesty comes to mind. When almost complete I did it justice by slapping the pre-formed shrouds/ratlines in place (which didn’t fit because they were designed for the Bounty model.

Another ‘nice’ feature is the masts are keyed to ensure that idiots don’t fit them pointing in the wrong direction. Unfortunately it  seems Revell were employing idiots at the time!

You can see the rest of my build here:

http://s795.photobucket.com/albums/yy234/GeoffWilkinson/Revells%20HMS%20Beagle/

Revell did ok. The Stag Hound/ Thermopylae/ Pedro Nunes kind of thing to me is quaint. I can proffer that probably the entire kit building community had little to no idea if these kits were anything other than wonderful.

The world needs more 1/96 clipper ship models for $ 19 as they were.

All of which is to say, I got the Lindstrom book after months of begging, based on an entry into ship modeling through the smaller Constitution model. And a lifelong love for big clunky things that float, ride the rails or fly was on.

I am currently working my way through the Revell "flat bottomed boat" series of kits. No, there's not a foghorn named Bill here. But Revell served the modelers with a very fine series of post war civilian ships . The SS. Doctor Lykes based on the VC-2, the J.L. Hanna based on the T2 tanker, the Hawaiian Pilot based on the C3 freighter.

I think Revell stumbled over the Essex Class carriers. I've wondered if they had been influenced by an outside source to choose 1/570, and full hull.

Dr. Graham might know. I should buy the book.

 

Not quite sure what bondoman is saying here but there is nothing quaint about a con! If I had bIought the Bounty no doubt I would have thought it wonderful because the kit was designed to represent what was known about that ship. So I build it and all the parts fit and I would admire the skill of the craftsmen producing the molds. I would probably be so proud of my achievement that I am inspired to try building a different model and purchase the Beagle only to find that the hull is identical to the Bounty but the deck has been slightly rearranged along with the position of the masts - now other parts are just not fitting as they should. I would feel cheated and disappointed.

For me, I just want to achieve a fair representation of what I am going to spend many hours of my precious life building. Something to be proud of.

$19.00, I don’t think so, maybe $80? but I pray that these companies could sort out that unholy of alliances of Artisans/Craftsmen, Marketing Men and Bean Counters.

That's my theory on how to make the world a happy place. (Don't you dare mention Realtors or Politicians!)  

 

Hopefully, the golden age of ship kits we are currently experiencing will diffuse into NEW plastic sail ship molds, not just re-releases. I simply dont have the time, space or money to invest into new tools, techniques, glues, etc to build uber-expensive Wood ships. Zvezda has a few very decent offergins, some of them accurate enough to satisfy the amateur historian in me. And my current stash is long enough to give me a few years of wait time :)